WSP06274 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ ~. OOl12~ . . both ours and that of the West Slope, that the federal court be selected, which could have wider powers of decision of water priorities and manner of operation than are possible in the limited proceedings known as statutory water adjudication pro- ceedings. These, by decisions, can adjudge only the date and amount of priorities in one particular water district, and not manner of operation. J. ~ Elementary Water Law 2n Priorities. What We Defend. Courts do not create water rights. They determine the relative priority of diversion works among each other. The water rights of the United States in the Colorado- Big Thompson project are claimed by it as an appropriator under the same Colorado law which applies to all appropriators. App- ropriations are created in Colorado by construction of works with intent to divert the water and by doing so with continuity of effort to completion by application of water to the beneficial use intended. If the construction and prosecution of the enter- , prise has been diligent throughout, so that others can see it going on, then, by doctrine of relation, the priority of the appropriation can be related back to the first substantial step of the appropriator. Whether or not the prosecution of the work is being carried on diligently is the way by which the states intending appropriators have notice that claims of others may be ahead of them on the stream. They may rely upon what they see going on openly by physical acts of construction or upon the absence of it. Filing of maps does not create appropria- tions. Building of works and diversion of water to use thereby are what create the appropriation. But to determine among conflicting claimants on a stream which one is first and the relative priorities of each to di- vert water in times of scarcity, court proceedings must be had. -17-